LIAQATH ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the son of the deceased employee. The petitioner's father, late Mohd. Ali, died in harness on 28-8-1994. It is stated that at the time of death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner was a minor being 15 years of age. After attaining majority on 14-9-2001, the petitioner laid a claim before the respondents/authorities to provide him appointment, on compassionate grounds, under the scheme framed by the respondents. As reflected in the counter-affidavit and the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected, taking into account the fact that the family of the deceased employee received the entire terminal benefits; the family of the deceased employee holds movable and immovable property and the members of the family are not indigent; the family pension was also sanctioned and the dependents left behind by the deceased employee have necessary financial support to sustain themselves.

(2.) When the petitioner was not given appointment on compassionate grounds, he instituted O.A.No.449 of 2002 seeking intervention of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Learned Administrative Tribunal, having considered the respective pleadings and also the time gap between the death of the employee and the representation of the petitioner, thought it fit not to grant any relief to the petitioner and accordingly O.A.No.449 of 2002 was dismissed. Hence this writ petition by the aggrieved applicant.

(3.) We have heard Mr. C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.